Trayvon Martin Case

Until the advent of the singularity, a non-human cannot make an ethical determination. Ethics cannot be defined by a constant. Therefore, a math equation could not realistically encapsulate every variable it could represent.

Hence, a computer program cannot currently adjudicate.

But the judicial system is founded on ethics. So we are back to the same question which you keep avoiding: how does "a computerized adjudication system" make ethical decisions?

Then we already have ethics in place from which to model the decisions with supporting arguments pro and con.

Until the advent of the singularity, a non-human cannot make an ethical determination. Ethics cannot be defined by a constant. Therefore, a math equation could not realistically encapsulate every variable it could represent.

Technological singularity is about to happen. Challenge accepted! (But not by me personally)

Until the advent of the singularity, a non-human cannot make an ethical determination. Ethics cannot be defined by a constant. Therefore, a math equation could not realistically encapsulate every variable it could represent.

Apostasy!!! Heresy!!! How dare you throw logic in the face of science. The Algorithm will save us from ourselves and only through the Algorithm can perfection be achieved.

(simplistically speaking that is).

A law and its breach can be converted into an equation?

Yes.

Consideration of ethical behavior derails a discussion of how to appropriately dispense justice??

It wasn't a part of my original point (which was this: It would be a much safer world if computers ran the judicial system jury and sentencing. No human bias.), feel free to try to continue to force it though.

Words cannot express the deep irony of and the incredible humor I find in your devotion to science.

Yes, but you can probably stare at your belly button and be enthralled judging by your posts.

Then we already have ethics in place from which to model the decisions with supporting arguments pro and con.



Technological singularity is about to happen. Challenge accepted! (But not by me personally)

So I must ask the same question yet again because you keep avoiding it: Which ethical theory do we already have "in place" from which we can "model the decisions" without controversy or, in your claim, without bias?

This is a basic Ethics 101 question. Certainly, since you claim to have a superior system of justice, you can answer an Ethics 101 question about the foundations of such a system.

So I must ask the same question yet again because you keep avoiding it: Which ethical theory do we already have "in place" from which we can "model the decisions" without controversy or, in your claim, without bias?

This is a basic Ethics 101 question. Certainly, since you claim to have a superior system of justice, you can answer an Ethics 101 question about the foundations of such a system.

You tell me, you've appointed yourself expert. I'm sure you won't deny we have a justice system in place, right? What are we currently using and why?

I could care less, I'm too busy trying to reprogram an old Commodore 64 to execute mice.

A law and its breach can be converted into an equation?
Yes.

Prove this affirmative statement. You may have faith that your opinion is true but you have yet to offer an objective, extrinsically verifiable methodology demonstrating that all human statutes, regulations, contractual agreements and precedential based common law can be converted to formulas applicable to any and all factual situations that may arise. Lacking such proof, all you have is faith.

Consideration of ethical behavior derails a discussion of how to appropriately dispense justice??
It wasn't a part of my original point, feel free to try to continue to force it though.

Your original point was:
It would be a much safer world if computers ran the judicial system jury and sentencing. No human bias.

Followed shortly thereafter by:
Emotion has no place in law.

After that, you stated your intent was:
I am trying to create an infallible system.

Thus, as to your original point, a “safer world” is achievable through the “infallible [judicial] system” that lacks bias and emotion. Obviously, to be infallible, the achievable computerized judicial system would necessarily render a correct result in every matter subject to that system.

To render correct results in the determination of crimes & penalties (criminal law), settlement of disputed agreements between parties (contract law), and the determination of whether a party has wronged another party (tort law), the infallible judicial system must have the ability to incorporate the concept of justice into its analysis of the specific facts (including the parties’ states of mind at various point of the relevant timeline), common law, statutes, contracts and/or regulations at issue. Failure to incorporate the necessary element of justice into such a judicial system, ipso facto renders the system inherently fallible.

As Lotus has demonstrated, justice, by definition, includes an ethical component i.e. an ability to factor into any final determination the concept of "just results". As articulated by Monksdown, ethics contains a variable not achievable by computers until the singularity has occurred. If you concede this, then you must also concede the falsity of your original assertion that “It would be a much safer world if computers ran the judicial system jury and sentencing”.

If you dispute Monksdown statement, the burden is upon you to prove that “ethics can be defined by a constant”. Otherwise, your belief that “It would be a much safer world if computers ran the judicial system jury and sentencing” is merely an unprovable article of faith you hold dear and that is unsupported by any extrinsic, verifiable proof.

A consideration of ethics is essential to your original assertion that “It would be a much safer world if computers ran the judicial system”. The pages of twists, turns and digressions in this matter are the direct result of your inability to admit the inherent logical error of this original statement and, alternatively, your failure to offer objective, extrinsically verifiable prove of its truth.

Words cannot express the deep irony of and the incredible humor I find in your devotion to science.
Yes, but you can probably stare at your belly button and be enthralled judging by your posts.

While my belly button is enthralling, what I find so deeply humorous is the smugness and intensity with which you – oh most vicious critic of those who have faith in the uprovable - defend an unprovable assertion in which you appear to have a deep and abiding faith. Truly, you are worthy of the most vicious mocking.

Preach on brother, your faith will see you through!

You tell me, you've appointed yourself expert. I'm sure you won't deny we have a justice system in place, right? What are we currently using and why?

I could care less, I'm too busy trying to reprogram an old Commodore 64 to execute mice.

Three strikes, you're out.

I asked a simple, basic question about the ethical basis for the system of justice you are proposing. Three times you have failed to offer an intelligent response. Obviously you have not at all thought through the very foundation of your system.

The fact is, Monksdown was correct above. The fact is that you cannot simply turn ethical decisions into mathematical equations. Anyone who knows anything about ethics knows this fact.

I suggest that before you start pontificating again about making ethics into quantifiable equations, you first learn the basics about what ethical theory is all about.

Three strikes, you're out.
Like most of your comments that wasn't a strike. Also, you weren't appointed Ump so I'm still very 'In'.

I asked a simple, basic question about the ethical basis for the system of justice you are proposing.

Which I answered: Whatever 'we're' currently using. Why do you refuse to accept the answer?

Three times you have failed to offer an intelligent response. Obviously you have not at all thought through the very foundation of your system.

Again, I responded. Oh, and by the way; you can't count.

The fact is, Monksdown was correct above. The fact is that you cannot simply turn ethical decisions into mathematical equations. Anyone who knows anything about ethics knows this fact.

Do we have any ethics experts here? Any math experts? My theory is sound even without evidence.

I suggest that before you start pontificating again about making ethics into quantifiable equations, you first learn the basics about what ethical theory is all about.

Feel free to make any suggestions you like, you're not any kind of authority here so I'll continue to theorize to entertain myself and you can mock away.

Do we have any ethics experts here? Any math experts? My theory is sound even without evidence.

Nope. Doesn't sound a bit like a faith based argument to me!

Feel free to make any suggestions you like, you're not any kind of authority here so I'll continue to theorize to entertain myself and you can mock away.

You make faaaarrrrr to easy.